My graduate school required a large amount of theology, which included the branch of historical theology.  Before I took the class, I must admit, I had not thought much about the category.  I know men introduced historical theology to me at different times and varied manners in other classes, but it became important to me at that time between the ages of 22 and 25 years.  Now when I listen to a presentation of a position, I want to hear its history for good and biblical reasons.

I know I’m writing on this subject because of an article I read today (as I first write this), called, “Five Reasons Historical Theology Is Necessary for the Local Church.”  The man who wrote it is not local church.  I would point out to you, if someone uses “local church” language, he may believe in two churches, universal and local, rather than the biblical one church, which is local only.  However, churches need historical theology.  They need to know that churches always believed what they believed, because it is the truth.  Caleb Lenard in the article gives good reasons.

Examples for Historical Theology

A strong argument for perfect preservation of scripture in the original languages comes from historical theology.  Christians believed this doctrine, as read in historical confessions of faith.  In a theological way, no one has yet upended that position on preservation.  Since this is what Christians have believed, you could call a change, heresy.  A new position on the preservation of scripture diverges off the already established belief.

Sometimes I hear the language, “the reformed doctrine of justification.”  Did the doctrine of justification originate with the Protestant Reformation?  I don’t believe that.  Maybe they dusted it off or took it out of the trash bin, but men kept believing it or else no one was saved not long after the advent of the Roman Catholic Church.

Is local only ecclesiology also historical theology?  Christians do not have to prove that a majority of believers received and propagated local only ecclesiology.  If it is true, scriptural doctrine, then believers should reveal its history, tell the historical story of local only ecclesiology.  It is also helpful to show how that other ecclesiology diverged from the path of truth, if local only ecclesiology is true.

Historical Ecclesiology

I would like those with a different ecclesiology to consider the historical problem of a catholic ecclesiology and the bad consequences too.  Roman Catholicism affected corrupt thinking on the doctrine of justification and many other doctrines.  That did not disconnect with Roman Catholic ecclesiology.  Correcting justification and not rectifying the other corrupted doctrines still leaves churches with much bad doctrine.  This dishonors God and hurts many people.

Men often will not say, perhaps because they don’t know, that their doctrine is Roman Catholic.  They don’t teach the false gospel of Roman Catholicism, but they teach other false doctrines.  Those false doctrines lead back to a false gospel.  One Roman Catholic doctrine accepted is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church.  Catholic church is universal church.  That ecclesiology, a false one, spread in a widespread way to Christians.

Some of you reading right now are nodding your head, “no.”  Back and forth, maybe smirking, rolling the eyes.  Maybe.  Just think about it though.  Did you get your ecclesiology from Roman Catholicism?  What kind of effect does that have for your life, others’ lives, and for all the other doctrines?

On the other hand, did I get my ecclesiology from mid 19th century landmarkists (see this series, and this one)?  Everyone had believed in catholic ecclesiology (just like they denied justification before) up to that point.  Local only ecclesiology then arose as a knee jerk reaction from J. R. Graves and Baptists in America.  They didn’t like the ecumenism spreading among Southern Baptists, so they invented the local only position to combat it.  Is that what happened instead?  What is it about Baptists that made them in particular prey in a widespread way to a teaching that the church was only local, never universal?

Catholic Ecclesiology

I wouldn’t believe the local only position if I thought it originated among 19th century Baptists in America.  Instead, I believe that looking in the Bible and also tracing history of doctrine supports something different.  The universal church view grew from seeds of neo-platonism previous to Constantine and took hold as the predominant ecclesiology only with the state church in the 4th century.  The Catholic Church persecuted churches separate from the state church.  Those churches existed and they believed the church was local, not universal.

A platonic system of theology, Origen’s allegorical or spiritualizing system, affected everything in the Roman Catholic Church.  Sprinkling of infants proceeded from this.  A corrupt human priesthood arose.  Amillennialism, the view that the kingdom was the Roman Catholic Church, took hold.  Hierarchical church government became the norm.  Tradition took prominence.  The Pope.  Transubstantiation.

Roman Catholicism and universal ecclesiology led to the dark ages.  It caused regression or glacially slow progress in measurements of living standards.  Most people stayed stupid for a long time because of Roman Catholic ecclesiology now embraced by many professing Christians.  Satan used it greatly.  The Protestant Reformation did not correct all that Roman Catholicism ruined.  It embraced or absorbed Roman Catholic ecclesiology and eschatology with few exceptions.

Consequential Regression

Byproduct of Roman Catholic Ecclesiology

Even if there is notable minute progress to which someone might point in correct thinking about issues of life, it is an exception.  It is usually a few bright spots mixed into still astounding darkness.  Useful scientific discovery overall, subduing and having dominion, came to a stop for over a thousand years because of Roman Catholicism.  Wherever it spread, such as Central and South America, left its destructive nature.

Everywhere the Roman Catholic Church took hold still continues a worse place to live because of its influence.  It is a byproduct of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, that can’t be separated from its system of interpretation.  As I say that, anticipating this argument, I understand that forms of paganism like animism also left the culture in ruins.  It wasn’t much worse than Roman Catholicism, and I compare the consequences to biblical Christianity in contrast.

Still today people think “Christian” means Roman Catholic.  Evangelicalism is a branch off a Catholic root in the mind of the general population.  Every Christian then becomes responsible for the crusades, the inquisition, the conquistadores, feudalism, a flat earth, religious wars, and widespread poverty.

Once the hold of Roman Catholicism was broken, including Catholic state church ideology, the freedom brought astounding progress.  People don’t trace that to ecclesiology or even talk about it in history classes, but it is true.  When Warren Buffet says that John Rockefeller did not live as well as Buffet’s middle class neighbors, this relates to progress arising from the downfall of a state church.

Wreaking Havoc

The ecclesiology of Roman Catholicism, however, still continues, reeking its havoc everywhere.  Globalism itself and its damage comes from Roman Catholic ecclesiology.  It is a utopian, universalist concept, that first existed in Roman Catholicism.  It stems from the mystical, spiritualistic, and allegorical system of Roman Catholicism.

A religious grounding from the system of Roman Catholicism continues in leftist thinking, which spreads utopian thinking, exerting power over individuals.  It has the capacity to return the world to neo-feudalism and another dark age.  None of this is true. The trajectory of the American colonies and the first one hundred fifty years of American history changed the world by overturning the influence of universal church doctrine.  A nation begins to suffer as it welcomes it back.

I have written about the founding of catholic ecclesiology, the universal church doctrine, many times here (here, here, here, here, and here among other places).  I have also written about the history and biblical doctrine of local only ecclesiology, offering that position (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and see these two on English separatism–here and here).

Because of the dominance of a universal church through history through the Roman Catholic Church, in comparison not much local only material exists.  The winners told the story.  They could destroy anything that countered their viewpoint.  You hopefully know the same practice occurs today in almost every institution.  Some call the falsehoods, fake news.  It is revisionist history based on a system of interpretation similar to what hatched Roman Catholicism.

More to Come